Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Áß°£ º´±â °£¼¼Æ÷¾ÏÁ¾ ȯÀÚÀÇ º´±â ¼¼ºÐÈ­
Subclassification of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Intermediate Stage

Journal of Liver Cancer 2016³â 16±Ç 1È£ p.17 ~ p.22

ÀÌÇý¿ø:Lee Hye-Won ±è½Â¾÷:Kim Seung-Up/¹ÚÁØ¿ë:Park Jun-Yong/±èµµ¿µ:Kim Do-Young/¾È»óÈÆ:Ahn Sang-Hoon/Çѱ¤Çù:Han Kwang-Hyub/±è¹ü°æ:Kim Beom-Kyung

Abstract

Background/Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) intermediate stage includes a highly heterogeneous population. Here, we aimed to subclassify hepatocellular carcinoma with BCLC intermediate stage for better prognostification.

Methods: Between 2003 and 2008, 325 patients who were newly diagnosed as HCC with BCLC intermediate stage were considered eligible. Tumor factor and liver function were used for sub-classification. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method with a comparison by log-rank test.

Results: A total of 325 patients with intermediate stage HCC were analyzed. Patients with tumor size ¡Ã7 cm, tumor number ¡Ã4 and Child-Pugh class B had the worse OS compared to those with tumor size <7 cm, tumor number <4 and Child-pugh class A, respectively (all P<0.05). These three variables affected the OS independently from multivariate Cox regression analysis (all P<0.05). So, using these three variables, patients were finally sub-classified as those with fulfilling none of three factors (B-a), one of three factors (B-b), two of three factors (B-c) and all of three factors (B-d) with the median OS of 39.2, 20.6, 12.0 and 8.3 months with statistical significances (all P<0.05 between B-a and B-b, between B-b and B-c, and between B-c and B-d), respectively.

Conclusions: Sub-classification of HCC with BCLC intermediate stage may be useful in not only prognostification but also guidance of treatment strategies.

Å°¿öµå

Hepatocellular carcinoma, Sub-classification, Prognosis, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage, Intermediate
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
ÇмúÁøÈïÀç´Ü(KCI) ´ëÇÑÀÇÇÐȸ ȸ¿ø 
ÁÖÁ¦ÄÚµå
ÁÖÁ¦¸í(Target field)
¿¬±¸´ë»ó(Population)
¿¬±¸Âü¿©(Sample size)
´ë»ó¼ºº°(Gender)
Áúº´Æ¯¼º(Condition Category)
¿¬±¸È¯°æ(Setting)
¿¬±¸¼³°è(Study Design)
¿¬±¸±â°£(Period)
ÁßÀç¹æ¹ý(Intervention Type)
ÁßÀç¸íĪ(Intervention Name)
Å°¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
Patients with tumor size ¡Ã7 cm, tumor number ¡Ã4 and Child-Pugh class B had the worse OS compared to those with tumor size <7 cm, tumor number <4 and Child-pugh class A, respectively (all P<0.05).
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆdz⵵(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå